Preterism & Creationism

[Guest]

Your interpretation has a lot of support. There is more than one context that we can (and others have) place(ed) on the text. If there is proof that there were carnivores before 6,000BC then we need to look to see if we have the right context.

Just for my own curiosity sake, at what point would the Bible become false to you? Let’s say for example that macro evolution proved to be true. Would that be enough for you or would you just think we need to check and see if we have the right context?

I don't know. How did they all show up to begin with? Something more than "nature" was going on.

Well here is the passage from Genesis 6:19,20 –

19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.”
20 "Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.”

It appears to be a command from God to the animals, just like when he commanded them to go to Adam for naming.

Maybe. We can't assume though that something never exists until the first time the text mentions it.

Can’t we know it by the language being used? For example, the keyword in the verse is “caused”. Meaning that the animals didn’t have this fear or terror to begin with, so he “caused” them to have it. If the animals were this way already why “cause” it? Wouldn’t God have rather said “I will return them to their fear and terror” or “They will now fear and terror you again”?

I don't believe that Romans 1 is telling us to trust one over the other. I think we can trust both. I don't think the text takes it any further than that.

I agree we can trust both, but don’t you agree that one is more important than the other? Meaning if you had to rely on one, which one would you go to first?

If someone was speaking in present tense in the past, what would it look like? Couldn't the text be saying "at this point, Adam called his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living"?

That’s true. I can see that point.

When and how did his redemption happen? Was your's the same? Did he have to call upon the name of Jesus?

Was the God of the old testament different from Jesus of the New Testament? No, Adam didn’t have to call on the name of Jesus, but the sacrifices that he made were a foretelling of Jesus Christ. To get a better understanding of Old Testament saints being saved before Christ’s sacrifice may I suggest that you read Hebrews Chapter 11. Here is one about Moses:

24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter,
25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin,
26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward.

How could Moses be considering the reproach of Christ before he even entered the world? It was because of the symbolism of sacrifice that was pointing towards Christ. Even the symbolism of the blood over the doorways, so that death could not enter.

That wasn't the question. If someone is going to suffer later, is it "mercy" to make them suffer here as well, or could a merciful God speed their demise as an act of mercy? I don't know the answer. I'm just asking the question.

If the person is not saved, is it merciful to speed their demise to eternal damnation? I would think of it as justice more. If your heart was hardened towards God and no change was going to be made than what does it matter whether you suffer here on earth or the afterlife. God is judge and he makes those decisions. However, if your heart is not hardened than it should be considered mercy that God let’s you live, so that you may have a chance at repentance.

Is this "man" as opposed to "woman" and "animal", or "man" as opposed to "young man" or "male"?

We’re comparing man to man here. The issue is did he grow or not? The Bible doesn’t give any indication that he did, so why should we assume or give the possibility that he did?

When God created "man" in His image, does that mean that women are not in His image?

Women are created in God’s image because they came from man who was created in His image.

It doesn't tell us how old he was when he was created. We can make assumptions, but that is all they are.

No, it doesn’t, but obviously it tells us he was a man when he was formed and he was able to communicate with God. It doesn’t tell us he was a boy and he grew up to be a man, so why should we think anything other than that he was a full grown man, regardless of age?

I don't know if he did. I'm just guessing here. The one time I express an opinion I actually have, I get called on it. LOL

Oh come on…you been bustin’ my chops for the past several pages. j/k

And I don't think he has guaranteed us perfect understanding of anything.

And I would say he doesn’t guarantee us perfect understanding of all things.

[Guest]

I would like to ask why you see this inconsistency about the word 'all' here. You had said he was making the argument that All is not All in this case. It seems to me, however, that he is not appealing a limited use of the word all. Rather, he is appealing for a reduced count of named animals based upon other phrases. Specifically, by appealing to the words "flying", "-of-the-field", and "livestock".

In the example that you quote, they infer that "every beast of the field" or "all the cattle" didn't mean all of them everywhere, but those "that lived in or near the Garden".

Another question I have, is how do OEC creationists handle the animal naming issue? It seems the OEC view has animals populated in local regions throughout the whole world, which would greatly complicate Adam's task of naming them all.

They hold that Adam had plenty of time. If Noah can have all the necessary animals show up for a boat ride, access was available somehow.
D.

[Guest]

The two options are:

1) The context in regards to the author: It is that which relates to the 'true meaning' of the passage: For example, the sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, genre, etc,.

2) The context in regards to the reader: It is that which relates to how I might percieve what is written: For example, my worldview, past experiences, etc,.

It is true that both senses of the context will affect my understanding of a word or passage, but the true meaning of the passage is not in anyway dependent of the latter context. When I was speaking of context in my statement, I was trying to communicate the context in the sense of option #1 not #2.

You are right. Our interptretation based on our context does not make the passage true or not. But while truth is independant of our context, our understanding of [/i]what the truth is[/i] is not. I'd even add a third option here. The physical/historical context of the author.
D.

[Guest]

Just for my own curiosity sake, at what point would the Bible become false to you? Let’s say for example that macro evolution proved to be true. Would that be enough for you or would you just think we need to check and see if we have the right context?

I think it is all true. If someone said they had proof that it was wrong, I have to spend some time with their "proof".

It appears to be a command from God to the animals, just like when he commanded them to go to Adam for naming.

You are probably right. See my post from a couple of minutes ago. I agreed.

Can’t we know it by the language being used? For example, the keyword in the verse is “caused”. Meaning that the animals didn’t have this fear or terror to begin with, so he “caused” them to have it.

I'd say that sometimes the verb being used is real clear. At other times there is room for more than one understanding.

If the animals were this way already why “cause” it? Wouldn’t God have rather said “I will return them to their fear and terror” or “They will now fear and terror you again”?

Like I said, a year living in a cage that was being cleaned by humans and you were being fed by humans, and you might get used to humans and start associating them with the source for food. Ever see the signs in parks to not feed the animals? They loose their fear of humans and their ability to hunt on their own.

I agree we can trust both, but don’t you agree that one is more important than the other? Meaning if you had to rely on one, which one would you go to first?

Which book of the Bible do you trust more than another? Which entity of the Trinity? If I go to Genesis as my primary source for study of creation because it if the source of the most information, is that wrong? What if there was a source with even more information...like the creation itself?

Was the God of the old testament different from Jesus of the New Testament? No, Adam didn’t have to call on the name of Jesus, but the sacrifices that he made were a foretelling of Jesus Christ.

God was not different, but their understanding was. Did Adam perform sacrifices? [/quote]

To get a better understanding of Old Testament saints being saved before Christ’s sacrifice may I suggest that you read Hebrews Chapter 11. Here is one about Moses:

Did sacrifices start with Adam, or his kids. I don't really know.

If the person is not saved, is it merciful to speed their demise to eternal damnation?

Probably not from an eternal perspective. But how many people have asked to die to end their misery here? I didn't really want to get into it here because it gets into a lot of other doctrines outside of the topic of preterism and creation.

Is this "man" as opposed to "woman" and "animal", or "man" as opposed to "young man" or "male"?

We’re comparing man to man here. The issue is did he grow or not? The Bible doesn’t give any indication that he did, so why should we assume or give the possibility that he did? It doesn’t tell us he was a boy and he grew up to be a man, so why should we think anything other than that he was a full grown man, regardless of age?

The point is that the Hebrew word for "man" is the same one as "Adam". Since the terms are the same, can we infer any age? If Adam was 9, and God "made Adam", would it be worded the same? My hunch is that he was post puberty, but the only support I have from the text is the reaction he had to Eve.
D.

[Guest]

Like I said, a year living in a cage that was being cleaned by humans and you were being fed by humans, and you might get used to humans and start associating them with the source for food. Ever see the signs in parks to not feed the animals? They loose their fear of humans and their ability to hunt on their own.

Will you be the first to walk into the tiger’s cage then at the zoo? Also, what did the animals eat for the first year or two while they repopulated the earth? Did a whole lot of animals become extinct after they started feeding on each other?

Which book of the Bible do you trust more than another? Which entity of the Trinity? If I go to Genesis as my primary source for study of creation because it if the source of the most information, is that wrong? What if there was a source with even more information...like the creation itself?

I believe we should take the whole Bible as our council. We don’t need to choose one book over the other. The creation might have more information, but what defines that information? The Bible or man?

God was not different, but their understanding was.

Not their understanding of who to have faith in.

Did Adam perform sacrifices? Did sacrifices start with Adam, or his kids. I don't really know.

If Adam didn’t perform sacrifices then how did he seek forgiveness of sins? As for his kids, who taught them the practice of sacrificing?

Probably not from an eternal perspective. But how many people have asked to die to end their misery here? I didn't really want to get into it here because it gets into a lot of other doctrines outside of the topic of preterism and creation.

Do those same people have an eternal perspective in mind? Also, how many people wanted to live, but end up dying? I agree that we will leave this for another topic.

The point is that the Hebrew word for "man" is the same one as "Adam". Since the terms are the same, can we infer any age? If Adam was 9, and God "made Adam", would it be worded the same?

Since no growth is mentioned, is it even proper to infer that he started out young?

My hunch is that he was post puberty, but the only support I have from the text is the reaction he had to Eve.

Why, because he said “Wooah Man!”? <rim shot>

[Guest]

Also, what did the animals eat for the first year or two while they repopulated the earth?

Each other? LOL This is actually an argument used by proponants of a local flood (I can go either way there, but on a new topic please )

Did a whole lot of animals become extinct after they started feeding on each other?

Quite possibly. Makes you wonder why God put them on the ark if they were just going to kill each other when they got off. I have to confess that I can't figure that one out in a global flood interpretation.

I believe we should take the whole Bible as our council. We don’t need to choose one book over the other. The creation might have more information, but what defines that information? The Bible or man?

Is it the Bible versus man, or man's interpretation of the Bible versus man's interpretation of nature?

If Adam didn’t perform sacrifices then how did he seek forgiveness of sins? As for his kids, who taught them the practice of sacrificing?

Was it a "sacrifice" in the Mosaic law sense, or was it an "offering"? Is there a difference? I don't know.

Since no growth is mentioned, is it even proper to infer that he started out young?

Is it proper to infer that Adam didn't grow? We all infer a lot by the text based on our worldview.
D.

[Guest]

Each other? LOL This is actually an argument used by proponants of a local flood (I can go either way there, but on a new topic please )

Please, go ahead I would like to see how one comes up with a local flood out of scriptures.

Quite possibly. Makes you wonder why God put them on the ark if they were just going to kill each other when they got off. I have to confess that I can't figure that one out in a global flood interpretation.

If their diet consisted of plants than there wouldn’t be a problem with a global flood interpretation.

Is it the Bible versus man, or man's interpretation of the Bible versus man's interpretation of nature?

Yes, do you believe that man’s theology should interpret man’s science or the other way around?

Was it a "sacrifice" in the Mosaic law sense, or was it an "offering"? Is there a difference? I don't know.

Here is the definition of sacrifice:

An act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar.

Abel offered something precious, a blood offering, where as Cain did not. For it is only by the shedding of blood that we can obtain forgiveness of sins.

Is it proper to infer that Adam didn't grow? We all infer a lot by the text based on our worldview.

If the Bible tells you the sky is blue can you infer anything else? If the meanings of words start to redefine themselves then we are treading dangerously in the waters of relativism.

[Guest]

[This is actually an argument used by proponants of a local flood (I can go either way there, but on a new topic please )

Please, go ahead I would like to see how one comes up with a local flood out of scriptures.

I'll start another topic and list some of the reasons that people have come up with.

If their diet consisted of plants than there wouldn’t be a problem with a global flood interpretation.

If the flood laid down hundreds of feet of what became the geologic column and soaked everything in salt water for a year, where did all the vegetation come from?

do you believe that man’s theology should interpret man’s science or the other way around?

I believe that both can be flawed unless they support each other.

If the Bible tells you the sky is blue can you infer anything else? If the meanings of words start to redefine themselves then we are treading dangerously in the waters of relativism.

I don't support a non-literal approach to history. But when a word has more than one literal interpretation, they need to be explored. It is not figurative to believe that day is not 24 hours.
D.

[Guest]

I'll start another topic and list some of the reasons that people have come up with.

Thanks. It always helps to see the other side in order to support my own viewpoint.

If the flood laid down hundreds of feet of what became the geologic column and soaked everything in salt water for a year, where did all the vegetation come from?

Genesis 8: 11-17 –

11 The dove came to him toward evening, and behold, in her beak was a freshly picked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the water was abated from the earth.
12 Then he waited yet another seven days, and sent out the dove; but she did not return to him again.
13 Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. Then Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the surface of the ground was dried up.
14 In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.
15 Then God spoke to Noah, saying,
16 "Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and your sons' wives with you.
17 "Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth."

According to verse 11 it appears that vegetation had returned. Then about 2 months later he was allowed to leave the ark with all the animals. It doesn’t seem too far fetched that there was plenty of vegetation for all the animals on the ark.

Also, notice on verse 17, “that they may breed abundantly on the earth”, why would God be concerned about this if there were already animals still existing elsewhere?

I believe that both can be flawed unless they support each other.

If both appear to contradict each other, which one do you rely on?

I don't support a non-literal approach to history. But when a word has more than one literal interpretation, they need to be explored. It is not figurative to believe that day is not 24 hours.

But if the context supports a literal 24 hour day with the use of morning and evening along with a number and day, than why should we read it any different? Every other time in the Bible it means 24 hours when preceded by a number or the words morning and evening, so why change the meaning at this point?

BTW, I enjoy this questioning back and forth even though you probably know all the answers already.

[Guest]

According to verse 11 it appears that vegetation had returned. Then about 2 months later he was allowed to leave the ark with all the animals. It doesn’t seem too far fetched that there was plenty of vegetation for all the animals on the ark.

Has anyone demonstrated that an olive tree can bear fresh leafs after being submerged under salt water for a year? The vegetation that we see now is on top of the geologic column. If the flood laid down all that dirt, where did all the vegetation come from? That is the question, not did vegetation exist.

I believe that both can be flawed unless they support each other.

If both appear to contradict each other, which one do you rely on?

I examine both. Why should I believe my theology is more infallible than my science if I believe that both nature and the Bible are true? In my 7-hour Genesis lecture I covered pros and cons from both a biblical and a scientific perspective. I studied both. I didn't start with the belief that my understanding of one was perfect and then try to force the other to fit. I've seen people from both sides start there. It isn't pretty.

But if the context supports a literal 24 hour day with the use of morning and evening along with a number and day, than why should we read it any different?

Here we go with "context" again. "Morning" and "evening" refer to the beginning and end of whatever "day" is. It could be a literal morning and evening. Many argue that it does not have to be though. Look at how it is used in Psalms 90, also written by Moses. It isn't literal there. Daniel 8:26 is another example. I know that the passages are, arguably, figurative. To me it isn't a real strong argument. The OEC position though is that the passages in Genesis that say "And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day" have a lot of inferances that the translators filled in. The phrase "and there was" is not in the Hebrew. It also has a construct of "day one", not "the first day". The Hebrew actually reads "Evening morning day one". This kind of conscruct is not found elsewhere in Scripture. This is a valid argument that passages like Ps 90 and Dan 8 can't be used as proof texts for non-literal days. But it is also an argument against claims that "well everywhere else that the Bible says X means X so it has to mean X here". It cuts both ways. I always found proof texts for that kind of argument interesting. Some point to books by other authors. Some point to books written centuries apart, as if language usage cannot change. Some even point to books written in different languages. The fact that "all the world should be taxed", for example, does not mean that "all the earth was covered by the flood" doesn't mean all. LOL Arguments that "in X days" has to be literal since it is always literal everywhere else sound good, until you notice that six of the ten times that phrase is used is not even in the Old Testament (five of the six refer to building the temple back up in three days and could therefore be figurative), two of the times refer to the creation days themselves and to use them would beg the question, and the other two passages are in 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah - both written about 425 or 450 BC. Both of these verses that are left were presumably written by Ezra. He was a scribe in Babylon. Do we want to base our argument on the assumption that a scribe in Babylon in 450BC would use the same language phrases exactly the same way that a prince of Egypt would a thousand years earlier? These arguments sound good when you are preaching to the choir. I flunked choir a long time ago though.

Every other time in the Bible it means 24 hours when preceded by a number or the words morning and evening, so why change the meaning at this point

See my comments above.

BTW, I enjoy this questioning back and forth even though you probably know all the answers already.

I enjoy it as well. You have been very patient with me. You have also kept the discussion in the realm of academics and not emotion or condemnation, and that has helped. I've been on other boards where this topic quickly turns personal and ends up producing more heat than light. It is different here. One thought that came to mind is that so many people have their actual photos as their avatar. Makes it easier to keep in mind that you are dealing with a fellow brother and sister in Christ. I think I can discuss this topic without emotion since I don't have an interpretation that I am behind 100%. After many years of study of as many different interpretations as I could find, I have come to appreciate the strengths of more than one.
D.